Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government Network The Internet United States

FCC Gives ISPs Another $563 Million To Build Rural-Broadband Networks (bloomberg.com) 115

Posted by BeauHD from the connecting-America dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: More than 220,000 unserved rural homes and businesses in 24 states will get broadband access because of funding authorized yesterday by the Federal Communications Commission, the agency said. In all, the FCC authorized more than $563 million for distribution to ISPs over the next decade. It's the latest payout from the commission's Connect America Fund, which was created in 2011. Under program rules, ISPs that receive funding must build out to 40 percent of the required homes and businesses within three years and an additional 20 percent each year until completing the buildout at the end of the sixth year.

The money is being distributed primarily to smaller ISPs in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia. Verizon, which is getting $18.5 million to serve 7,767 homes and businesses in New York, is the biggest home Internet provider on the list. All the ISPs committed to provide speeds of at least 25Mbps downstream and 3Mbps upstream, but many of the funded projects are for higher speeds of 100Mbps/20Mbps or 1Gbps/500Mbps. Speeds promised by each ISP are detailed in the two announcements.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FCC Gives ISPs Another $563 Million To Build Rural-Broadband Networks More

FCC Gives ISPs Another $563 Million To Build Rural-Broadband Networks

Comments Filter:

  • Connect America Fund? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scdeimos ( 632778 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @06:04PM (#58936470)
    I had to re-read that. For some reason I kept seeing it as Connect America Fraud.

    • Re:Connect America Fund? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @06:09PM (#58936484) Homepage Journal

      I had to re-read that. For some reason I kept seeing it as Connect America Fraud.

      Congratulations, you're learning to see past the fnords. When you start seeing the fnords themselves, you'll really be on a higher level.

      • I pine for that day myself.

      • There are of course, all sorts of fnords in all sorts of places. To aspire to see them all is a valiant goal, but to assume at any point that you've reached this goal is to become a Cosmic Schmuck. The Discordian Saint hears the eternal laughter of the howling void and takes a nap.

    • Re: Connect America Fund? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by yeshuawatso ( 1774190 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @06:41PM (#58936642) Journal

      So, Verizon only has to reach 40% of the rural population to make $18.5 million, or roughly $6k per customer, plus another $4.5-5mil per year from that 40% while the remaining 60% still can't get access or develop their own networks. Let's not kid ourselves, that 60% wont see a connection. We've seen this game being played before, they'll bring service to a couple of outskirt subdivisions while ignoring those poor schmucks that happen to live 1/2 or more miles between each other, call it coverage, and walk away with the money. It's like the American people who are in the worst positions keep voting against themselves and paying for it 10x over. If the FCC wanted to really get people covered, they'd open the funds up to any contractor willing to lay the groundwork for 100% coverage with payments happening incrementally based on actual completion obligations, but then those FCC board members likely would be unemployed at the next administration change instead of taking jobs back at the same people they were supposed to be regulating.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        " unserved rural homes" I live in NJ, the most densely populated state and can't get FIOS even though their cable is on my corner lot but not in front of my home :( My best connection is using 4G

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          " unserved rural homes" I live in NJ, ...

          I live in Texas where 60% of the state land mass has ZERO internet options other than satellite.
          And after this money is used, the same 60% will still have ZERO internet options.

          I don't think internet is critical to have, but we have seen this happen in the past and it has NEVER changed the rural coverage of anything.

      • It's like the American people who are in the worst positions keep voting against themselves and paying for it 10x over.

        I'm not familiar with how they should be voting, enlighten me. In the past 20 years, at different points in time, both the Democrats and Republicans have had Congress plus the presidency. Not much happened in either case with regards to rural broadband as the problem still exists today.

    • I have a dig bick
      You wrong that read
      You read that wrong too

  • Again, eh? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Did we ever figure out what the telecoms did with the ~$400 Billion they were given up until around 2014 for... this very same project?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Stadium names.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It was used to fund a committee to fund a study on how to spend the funds without laying any new cable.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They spent it lobbying for more handouts.

    • CenturyLink is still collecting $500M a year from the government, IIRC, and the North Carolina municipal broadband ban was passed under the pretense that "it's not fair for private ISPs to compete with tax dollars." As many tax dollars as private ISPs are getting and NOT spending for what they're earmarked for (as evidenced by essentially zero build-out in the mostly-rural place I live that's dominated by CenturyLink), I'd say that's 100% certified prime bullshit. It's even worse than that: there's a small

  • Because it worked so well the first time... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm sure the http://irregulators.org/ have something to say about this.

    • I doubt they'd accept this deal but I think this would be an interesting solution to the "ISP doesn't put down new cable to all promised areas, if at all"

      Let's keep the amount the same, and specify that all X areas must be built, say, in Y duration. Duration/area doesn't really matter and could be negotiated, but the next part does: all X areas must have FCC defined broadband speed (which is 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload) in Y duration; after Y duration, nothing happens until 1 week after Y: for every

  • " Verizon, which is getting $18.5 million to serve 7,767 homes and businesses in New York,..."

    That works out to $2381 per connection. Why the heck are we spending that to subsidize rural broadband when satellite already exists? Sure, it's not awesome, but what's so critical that we have to spend half a billion dollars building infrastructure to Nowheresville?

    • but what's so critical that we have to spend half a billion dollars building infrastructure to Nowheresville?

      Verizon's stock price.

      • Verizon is receiving $18.5 million out of a total of $563 million, Jeremy. To save you the trouble, that's about 3%.

        The vast majority of the money, as explicitly stated in the summary (you know, the part you skimmed over to get to Verizon's name) and laid out in detail here [fcc.gov], is going to small, rural ISPs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by matthelm007 ( 1392603 )
      You've never used satellite for broadband, have you. I'd compare it to fast dial-up.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's easy to advocate for satellite service until you've actually used it and see how many issues there are not making it realistic. It's a joke. It's like giving someone a go kart as a replacement for a car.

    • Re:Nice Grift (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dissy ( 172727 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @07:42PM (#58936886)

      That works out to $2381 per connection. Why the heck are we spending that to subsidize rural broadband when satellite already exists?

      We aren't. This will be no different than the first 4 times in the last 18 years we paid ISPs to connect these comes. They didn't do it then, or again, or again, or again. They won't do it now either.

      Sure, it's not awesome, but what's so critical that we have to spend half a billion dollars building infrastructure to Nowheresville?

      The idea was to make us no longer a shit hole 3rd world nation where less than 40% of the population at the time, 80% now, had broadband.

      You don't want to live in a shit hole do you?

      Well it doesn't matter, we do and will continue to do so, since this money won't be going towards anything but the ISP executives pockets, just like last time, and the time after, and the time after...

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dissy ( 172727 )

        we paid ISPs to connect these comes

        Homes.

        Thanks auto correct, I didn't ask for that, and you didn't listen when I said don't do that. You're wonderful.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You don't want to live in a shit hole do you?

        Well it doesn't matter, we do and will continue to do so, since this money won't be going towards anything but the ISP executives pockets, just like last time, and the time after, and the time after...

        First remove all laws preventing cites/towns/etc from competing with established ISPs. That's just stupid. Second prosecute and recall as much money as possible by ISPs that have lied in the past. I'm okay with giving the corporate death sentence to all of them, if that is what it takes. Third, require net neutrality from all users of the money, from now until the end of time, as long as the infrastructure built is in place. Fourth, establish a sufficiently well staffed part of the FCC to make sure thi

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jezwel ( 2451108 )

        The idea was to make us no longer a shit hole 3rd world nation where less than 40% of the population at the time, 80% now, had broadband. ..., since this money won't be going towards anything but the ISP executives pockets, just like last time, and the time after, and the time after...

        If the US has progressed from 40% to 80% broadband connectivity in 18 years, money has been spent doing this, and some of that money was quite possibly sourced from these grants. It's a bit disingenuous to say it all goes to line execs pockets.

        • Re:Nice Grift (Score:4, Informative)

          by dissy ( 172727 ) on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @01:34AM (#58937884)

          If the US has progressed from 40% to 80% broadband connectivity in 18 years, money has been spent doing this, and some of that money was quite possibly sourced from these grants.
            It's a bit disingenuous to say it all goes to line execs pockets.

          Broadband used to be defined as wired 25 mbit down, which was 40% of the nation in 2016
          Now it is 10 mbit down, wireless or wired, where wireless carriers claim 80% have coverage for.
          But no wireless carriers offer a data cap high enough to get 10 mbit sustained for a whole month (or at least none did a few months ago), so simply being in coverage range doesn't mean you have any internet access most of the time. and they continue to not be served by any wired providers.

          Since that involves no money being spent on connecting additional homes, that money had to go somewhere.

          I have my doubts the money went towards this like you think. That would mean grant money from the government to the ISPs, would then be given right back to the government as a bribe to have the FCC change the definition.
          That just sounds backwards. I guess it's possible, it's not like dumber things haven't happened before.

          But the natural conclusion is that it was kept as profits. So executive and shareholder pockets then?

      • Plus, sat connectivity has limitations, including latency that confounds interactive use, and limited upstream bandwidth.

    • Why the heck are we spending that to subsidize rural broadband when satellite already exists?

      We are not. We are spending it to subsidize executive bonuses at telcos.

      But satellite doesn't really exist yet. Obviously it does, you can get satellite internet, but if we put all the people now just on dialup (!) on satellite, that alone would probably be enough to make it unusable. We're waiting for Musk's LEO Starlink network before we can actually add any significant number of satellite internet users. Right now, all viacom/exede users are going through one bird (Viasat) for example. As it is, they hav

  • Fool me once, shame on you (Score:3)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @06:31PM (#58936600)
    fool me twice, you, you can't, you can't fool me again.

    • fool me twice, you, you can't, you can't fool me again.

      They are not fooling you . . . they are taxing you . . . you get to pay for someone else's high speed Internet connection.

      • They are not fooling you . . . they are taxing you . . . you get to pay for someone else's high speed Internet connection.

        Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa hhhaaaa ahhahahaha

        no.

        You get to pay... and that's it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pnutjam ( 523990 )
        wait... Is this some sort of welfare? To rural people? How dare you imply this!

    • :-) You gonna stop 'em?

  • Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So the US government is paying some privately owned ISP to build internet infrastructure that the ISP gets to own for 220,000 unserved rural homes and businesses in 24 states and then provide them with shitty monopoly service because that ISP will then be the only game in town? ... Well I suppose it beats having no connection at all, though not by much.

  • The money is said to be going to a lot of smaller ISPs, but it seems like maybe a better approach would be to devote some of it to subsidizing build out of more remote cellular towers - they probably are the best best for giving decent interesting speeds to the most remote users.

    My mother lives in a rural area, and the best solution by far was an unlimited T-Mobile wireless hotspot. It's still not great as the signal quality there is poor, so even with a custom cellular antenna her speeds are not great. Wi

  • Didn't we learn the last fucking time? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chas ( 5144 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @06:45PM (#58936664) Homepage Journal

    All this money does is go into some exec's bonus.
    The major ISPs pound their pud a bit until the money's gone.
    And NOTHING is ever done.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jred ( 111898 )
      I don't know what happened last time, or what will happen this time. I know that my house in the boonies of Mississippi couldn't get cable or DSL, and you'd have to drive 3 or 4 miles up the road to send a text. I spent a year in NC and when I got back... AT&T fiber to the house, 1000mb. It's... glorious.

      • What probably happened is that they had to upgrade some hardware your line was on in order to accomplish something they cared about, so you got lumped in with others.

        Back in the days when DSL was cool, some of my friends only got it when someone crashed a car into the telco box on their street, and they had to replace the equipment anyway.

        Unless you get spectacularly lucky, it looks like the only way to get a telco upgrade in the sticks is a structure hit.

    • Let's be clear, these funds go directly into the pockets of Ajit Pai's old buddies not just any random exec
    • Not disputing, but in some areas the smaller ISPs are definitely expanding. I get 100Mbps from a major ISP, my parents that live 30 minutes outside of town just got fiber last year.
  • While increased broadband coverage is probably a "good thing" isn't this corporate socialism? And... aren't Republicans against socialism? Or are they for it when it helps companies (like ISPs) and against it when it hurts companies (like health insurance)?

  • Money going to smaller ISPs? (Score:3)

    by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Tuesday July 16, 2019 @08:28PM (#58936990) Homepage

    I haven't been keeping up, but is this a rare case of Pai doing something that isn't completely moustache-twiddling evil?

    • Shhhhhh! There are memes to be maintained! See above for several examples of people desperately looking for the cloud wrapped around the silver lining.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by UperPoti ( 832091 )
      No, this is charity style investments to telecom big wigs. Keep moving along, nothing to see here.
    • No there's no possible way for this to be a positive development, no matter how mom-and-poppy the ISPs are. All of the rights that we've lost, the privacy regulations that the FCC rolled back in 2017, the gutting of network neutrality, classifying ISPs as information services, suppressing municipalities from providing their own non-shitty services, all of that has been sacrificed in the name of "encouraging investment" by the ISPs, primarily with the goal of providing service to rural communities. The FCC i

    • I haven't been keeping up, but is this a rare case of Pai doing something that isn't completely moustache-twiddling evil?

      No. We The People have given the telcos literally billions of dollars with no oversight. For example, Pacific Bell (remember them?) promised to deliver "litespeed" (half the DSLAM is in the box in your neighborhood) to all POTS customers by 2000. This is a theft from The People handed to telcos, no more and no less.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Trogre ( 513942 )

        Serious question, but why wasn't the money taken back off Pacific Bell when they failed to deliver?

        Are there no checks and balances at all in your country?

  • corporate welfare (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ... $563 million for distribution to ISPs ...

    The bulk of this is going to small providers that need cheap money for growth, yet history predicts this taxpayer largess will be wasted. In other words, the FCC will once again, not hold the ISPs accountable for their use of the money. Once again, US voters will ignore the corporate-welfare mentality of their elected politicians.

    ... funded projects are for higher speeds ...

    This is the loophole: The ISPs will claim it's too difficult and use a premium subsidy to install minimal service. If the goal is really extending the network, then the plan s

  • I was going to complain about the Federal gov't having already paid to have these outliers provided broadband, and that the ISPs mostly just took the money and claimed it was impossible to accomplish, but as it's already been done for me I won't waste the bandwidth.

  • What happened to the claim that the Trump administration didn't support building out infrastructure in the United States including the internet? FWIW, I'm an independent not a Trump supporter. However, I thought it was interesting that this fact goes against some liberal hyperbole.

    • What happened to the claim that the Trump administration didn't support building out infrastructure in the United States including the internet?

      Alive and well. We've given the telcos billions of dollars to build out the last mile, with no oversight, and they have handed out most of that money in the form of record bonuses to their executives.

      FWIW, I'm an independent not a Trump supporter.

      Perhaps you should step away from his cock, then, because you're sucking it right now. Does he spray bronzer on that, too? America wants to know, and you're in the ideal position to tell us.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by zifn4b ( 1040588 )

        Perhaps you should step away from his cock, then, because you're sucking it right now. Does he spray bronzer on that, too? America wants to know, and you're in the ideal position to tell us.

        You're adorable. I'm sensing sexual tension here and quite flattered.

  • Give them nothing (Score:3)

    by scourfish ( 573542 ) <scourfish@@@yahoo...com> on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @09:05AM (#58938936)
    Let the free market determine whether or not it is economical to provide broadband to a rural area, and stop rewarding these companies for corporate cronyism.
    • Of course it's not economical. But a civilized country should connect everyone. So instead of leaving it in the hands of for-profit companies who will just steal the money, do it through government control and oversight. Let it be the training activity for the Army Signal Corps before they have to string wires in a combat zone.

  • I had to RTFS again but it seems like the money is for the ISPs that aren't the ones swimming in money. These are the ones that actually do need outside funding to fulfill the requirement to provide rural broadband. If you read the list of states most of them have significant rural areas and/or distance between small cities and the hubs.

    Of course there's every possibility that as soon as these companies build out the infrastructure they'll be bought out by the big cable companies so they'll get a second han

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close